Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-04-16 City Council Regular MinutesCITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING APRIL 16,1991 The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Apache Junction, Arizona,was held on April 16,1991,at the Apache Junction City Council Chambers pursuant to the notice required by law. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Bluntschly called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. INVOCATION Councilman Eidson gave the Invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Councilman Cox led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Councilmen Present: Staff Present: Others Present: Mayor Bluntschly Councilwoman Barker Councilman Cox Councilman Eidson Councilwoman Alger Councilman Vehon City Manager Michael R.Lee City Clerk Kathleen Connelly City Attorney David Alexander Deputy City Clerk Lori Zmayefski Assistant City Manager George Hoffman Director of Public Works Rich Broman Parks and Recreation Director Jeff Bell Planning Division Manager Jim Nakagawa City Engineer Gordon Grandy Economic Development Specialist John Schoeph Ms Midge Conway 902 S.Ocotillo Apache Junction,Arizona Mr.John Slentz 1632 N.Chestnut Circle Mesa,AZ REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 16,1991 PAGE 1 Mr.Earl Snapp 6160 E.Roosevelt Apache Junction,Arizona Mr.Jack Dupont 1909 E.Berry Lane Phoenix,AZ Ms Pat Meyers Friends of the Library Apache Junction,Arizona Mr.Keith Hilgendorf General Manager Apache Junction Chamber of Commerce ACCEPTANCE OF CONSENT AGENDA ) )Councilwoman Alger MOVED THAT CONSENT AGENDA ITEM NOS.1 -5 BE ACCEPTED AS PRESENTED,EXCEPT THAT ITEM NO.3 BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION FOLLOWING THE CITY MANAGER'S REPORT; AND THAT RESOLUTION NO.91-18,REQUESTING THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO AUTHORIZE TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE FUNDS PURSUANT TO SECTION 28-2602,ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES,BE APPROVED AND ADOPTED; AND THAT THE PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON APRIL 2,1991,BE RATIFIED,AND THAT THE CITY MANAGER BE AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE THE PRETREATMENT AGREEMENT AND MAKE MINOR MODIFICATIONS,IF REQUIRED,BY ENTITIES DESCRIBED THEREIN. I FURTHER MOVE THAT THAT AGREEMENT MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ANY TIME AFTER COMMUNITY AUTHORITY IS OBTAINED TO CREATE A SEWER UTILITY. Councilwoman Barker seconded the motion. VOTE:Unanimous The motion carried. Introduction of Distinguished Visitors and Guests Mayor Bluntschly welcomed everyone to the meeting. AWARDS,PRESENTATIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 16,1991 PAGE 2 City Clerk Kathleen Connelly read the Proclamation designating the week of May 1 -7,1991,as "Youth Week". Mayor Bluntschly presented the Proclamation to a representative of the Apache Junction B.P.O.E.Lodge No.2349. CALL TO THE PUBLIC Ms Midge Conway,902 S.Ocotillo,Apache Junction,addressed the Council requesting that no more RV parks be allowed in this area and the need to equate winter visitor costs with revenue produced. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT City Manager Michael R.Lee reported that the construction of the Weekes Wash bridge is completed with the road open and paved,and the construction of the Police Building Annex is also complete,with the remodel of the existing Police Department Building to begin.Mr.Lee stated that he and Mayor Bluntschly are planning to attend a CAAG Regional Council meeting in Mammoth on April 24th,and that the Council and public are welcome to attend. CONSENT AGENDA ITEM NO.3 AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT FOR FINANICAL SERVICES FOR AUDIT PURPOSES; AUTHORIZATION TO NOTIFY ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OF CONTRACT FOR SUCH SERVICES. City Clerk Kathleen Connelly explained that for years the Council has heard the public saying that they do not want an increase in taxes but rather,would like the City to go after the tax violators;this was part of the City Clerk's budget request of 1987;in 1987 and 1988 the business community came to the Council with the request that the Council look to those who are breaking the law rather than those who are upholding the law;in 1988-89 a Council -appointed committee consisting of Paul Connolly,Chamber of Commerce Director Keith Hilgendorf,business owner Sandy Smith,and herself met and formulated a recommendation that the City actively pursue a tax audit and collection program;in 1989-90 a full-time License Enforcement Officer was hired as a preamble to tonight's agenda item;in 1989 license fees were looked at and again the public made the same request;in 1990 some of the Council met with representatives of the restaurant and liquor license industry,and they said "please don't tax us that are paying,tax those that aren't";again in 1990 the budget request was made for a tax audit ser- vice;and last night it was said that as many as 95% of street cart vendors are not licensed or paying city sales tax. Ms Connelly stated that the agreement being considered tonight will provide a way for the Council to con- REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 16,1991 PAGE 3 sider a way of responding to this request,to identify and obtain revenues from those businesses who are not paying under the current Code,and further stated that in 1990 she had requested that a full-time staff auditor be budgeted for approximately $26,000 which did not reflect all of the possible costs. Ms Connelly explained that the contract for services in the amount of $25,000 provides the services of an auditor,investigator,two people to canvass City businesses,and a hearing officer without the burden of continuing employee costs.Ms Connelly added that it also provides less risk to the City,and that the City would enjoy the experience and successful tax auditors.Ms Connelly further stated that we do not have the luxury of hiring someone for on-the-job training,and that this contract also provides people who are experienced in working with the Arizona Department of Revenue. Councilman Eidson asked i f the State wouldn't benefit more than the City with these audits,and why aren't they involved with the cost of the audits. Ms Connelly replied that the State wouldn't benefit at all from these audits in that there would only be audits for City taxes,and that currently there is a "no fee"relationship with the State, therefore,when we request the State audit someone they will simply put it aside i f there is no money in i t for them. Councilman Eidson commented that i f there is money to be obtained for the City,there has to be some monies for the State. Ms Connelly stated that there is not necessarily so,as the City taxes for some things that the State doesn't,such as rental income of more than 30 days. Councilman Eidson asked if we would be auditing for retail sales also,for example if Arnold's sold a car,they pay a sales tax,would this type of business be involved in the audits. Ms Connelly replied that the empha- sis would be on rental incomes and substantially large retail and contractors. Councilman Eidson asked what type of method would be used in the survey,and expressed concern over lack of control over the auditors. Ms Connelly explained that the City authorizes the company to audit,and that they would not do anything without first informing herself,and further that this company is very reputable. Councilman Eidson asked how the com- pany would be paid from a percentage of monies uncovered. Ms Connelly explained that should a company owe $1,000 in taxes,the auditors would be paid a percentage of that REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 16,1991 PAGE 4 $1,000,and that the assessment will be conducted only on one year into the future basis. Councilman Eidson asked i f lawsuits against the auditors would be a cost to the City. City Attorney David Alexander replied that it would be. Councilwoman Alger pointed out that the contract does not say the auditor cannot go to any business they choose. Ms Connelly explained that they will first look at the current license list and canvass the City,and based on the out- come,will uncover those commercial operations that are not owner occupied and I f sales tax is being paid,and then decide whether the business is worth auditing,but the auditors will not have free rein.Ms Connelly added that the company wants to be able to put on their resume that they came into the City of Apache Junction,conducted 14 audits,and came up with $139,000,and i f i t appears after the first 60 days that there is not substantial revenue out there, they will come to the City and ask that the contract be cancelled. Councilwoman Alger asked what cri- teria is used when reviewing the lists,to determine who gets audited. Ms Connelly replied that they look at similar businesses,discrepancies in reporting from one year to the next. Councilwoman Alger asked what other sources will be used,besides tax paying records. Ms Connelly stated that they will go to the Arizona Department of Revenue and check for change of ownership,more than one tax number,that there is a checklist to determine i f the dollars are somewhere else. Councilwoman Alger pointed out that that the economy has dropped off,and this could cause discrepancies. Ms Connelly explained that they will take the economy into consideration,and that the main focus will be busi- nesses who have for prolonged periods of time,as much as three years,not paid any City sales tax. Councilwoman Alger agreed with the principle that i f one business has to pay sales tax,everybody should,but the approach may alienate the business community. Councilwoman Alger added that the contract says the company will ensure that all businesses are complying with the sales tax requirements. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 16,1991 PAGE 5 Ms Connelly pointed out that this is referring to the survey,and this is the purpose of the survey. Councilwoman Alger asked what the purpose is of the survey. Ms Connelly replied that it will determine that they are licensed,that they have a sales tax number,that they are paying sales tax,and to uncover those who are renting with a landlord who is not licensed. Councilwoman Alger asked i f this isn't what our business license enforcement program is doing. Ms Connelly replied that to a point this is being done,but we cannot go door-to-door to find out if a dwelling is owner or tenant occupied. Councilwoman Alger asked why we can't. Ms Connelly replied that staff simply does not have the time. Councilman Eidson expressed concern that the auditors would be going from business to business throughout town,and to audit a business can take a week,meanwhile tieing up that business. Ms Connelly stated that the City Code authorizes staff to conduct audits currently,so this isn't new,this is simply putting in place a mechanism to carry out audits.Ms Connelly added that although it may be an inconvenience to the business,i f that business owes the City -and in turn the taxpayers of the City -$75,000,that is an inconvenience the business will have to bear. Councilman Eidson pointed out that Apache Junction is not like other towns,and the auditors need to realize that as they may get thrown out of a business. Councilman Vehon stated that the City has been working in the direction of audits for some time,so it appears to be a policy issue as to whether the City staff do this on their own or whether i t is contracted,and that this is almost like photo radar in that the City is assigning powers to a company to audit.Councilman Vehon suggested that an auditor be hired on a contract basis,such as the City Manager or City Attorney, for a yearly review. Ms Connelly stated that there would be no guarantee that this person would be familiar with tax codes and could be totally alien to the process,and disagreed that this is like photo radar as every step they take in the City has to to be cleared. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 16,1991 PAGE 6 Councilman Vehon pointed out that i f there is flack from business owners because of the audits,it will be the City Council receiving the flack. Ms Connelly asked i f there is anything wrong with taking "heat"from those individuals who voluntarily decide not to pay taxes due. Councilman Vehon agreed that everyone should be paying the taxes,but felt that it may be better to hire someone full-time. Ms Connelly explained that there have been leads given to the State that would easily pay for this contract. Councilwoman Alger asked how i t is determined whether a residence is a rental. Ms Connelly explained that the TRW microfiche is used to look at County property reports,and from that determine whether they are owner -occupied or rented.Ms Connelly further explained that we are not referring to one person renting one house,but those that occur in quantity such as apartment complexes,mobile home parks.Ms Connelly stated that due to State confidentiality Statutes,the names cannot be disclosed,but there is one instance where a large complex has not paid sales tax for three years. Councilwoman Alger pointed out that current staff has the ability to audit these. Ms Connelly explained that staff has the ability to request records,but not the auditing capacity to work through the whole process including the hearing. Councilwoman Alger commented that this professional agreement has none of these items in it. of the agreement. Ms Connelly explained the contents Councilman Vehon asked i f the City would have to pay the auditor for taxes that are assessed,but that the City is unable to recover. City Attorney David Alexander replied that a one time instance with a contractor would not be included in the future assessments,but that a business that went bankrupt would be a negative aspect. City Manager Michael R.Lee com- mented that the Council seems to agree to the general purpose of the issue,that REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 16,1991 PAGE 7 this is not the only way to achieve the goal but i t is staff's recommendation, and suggested postponing this so that the somewhat sketchy contract can be made more specific. Mr.Alexander stated that the contract can be changed,but i f the Council has no intention of approving the contract,he would not want to spend a lot of time negotiating with the company for additional terms. Mr.Alexander also stated that although $20,000 is a lot of money,i t is not nearly as much as the cost of a full-time employee,equipping that employee and providing benefits,and the audi- tor may discover there is not a problem with people paying taxes.Mr.Alexander pointed out that an employee could be hired only to discover that there is not a need,so one of the purposes of this is also investigatory as well as collection and enforcement. Mayor Bluntschly stated that every- body is acutely aware that there is a problem,but the question is what is the magnitude of the problem,and what amount of staff it will take to prevent i t in the future. Ms Connelly explained that anything discovered will be negotiated with the taxpayer,and one suggestion is that i f the taxpayer is willing to pay in full what is due the City,the penalties and interest will be waived. Councilwoman Alger commented that her problem is not understanding how the whole process works,but that there appears to be a way of knowing who is and isn't paying sales tax. Ms Connelly explained that there is enough documentation in some instances to be certain that they are not paying, but current staff does not have the training necessary to go through all of the documentation to prove that we are right in our suspicions. Councilwoman Alger asked how we know these few that aren't paying for sure -is i t just a suspicion. Ms Connelly replied that when an existing business shows up with month after month after month with zeros next to their name on a revenue report,it gives staff reason to believe that there is a problem. Councilwoman Alger asked if we know this,why have we waited so long to do something. Ms Connelly replied that these accounts have been turned over to the State,who has informed us that there is no money in the audit for the State,they don't have the time,so they won't pursue the accounts. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 16,1991 PAGE 8 Councilwoman Alger stated that there is still concern over the way the contract is written and the procedures Involved,and suggested postponing this item. Councilman Vehon asked i f it would be possible to have Mr.Moss come to a work session. Ms Connelly replied that this would be possible,however,some technicalities may cross the line of confidentiality that Mr.Moss would be unable to discuss. Councilman Vehon asked i f he couldn't at least give information on the process. Ms Connelly answered that Mr.Moss would not have a problem with doing this. Councilman Vehon said that he has gotten phone calls from business people who pay their taxes,but are concerned that this company will come in and audit at random. Ms Connelly stated that there appears to be misconceptions that the auditors will take the shotgun approach, but that they are not going to waste their time on an audit that will not prove profitable. Councilwoman Barker MOVED THAT THIS ITEM BE POSTPONED UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT THE COUNCIL CAN GET THE INFORMATION REQUESTED TONIGHT -AT THE MAY 6,1991,WORK SESSION,AND MAY 7,1991,REGULAR MEETING,WITH POSSIBLE EXECUTIVE SESSION DISCUSSION. Councilman Cox seconded the motion. VOTE:Unanimous The motion carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO.780,PZ-1-91 IDAHO FREEWAY ASSOCIATES ) )Councilman Vehon stated that he would be abstaining from this item,due to a possible conflict of interest. Senior Planner Jim Nakagawa explained that this application for rezoning was submitted by Mr.John Slentz of Idaho Freeway Associates,from General Rural to General Commercial for a 4.7 acre parcel located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Idaho Road REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 16,1991 PAGE 9 and the Superstition Freeway.Mr.Nakagawa stated that when the General Plan was formulated,it was anticipated that because of the freeway ramp design, there would be some constraints on this parcels ability to be used for commer- cial purposes,but since examining ADOT's engineering drawings i t appears that a commercial use might be feasible at this location.Mr.Nakagawa further stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission and staff recommend approval of the rezoning with stipulations including roadway dedication. Councilwoman Alger asked what the purpose is of the requirement for an east -west thoroughfare to Winchester. Mr.Nakagawa explained that there are not the necessary rights -of -way to provide for east -west traffic movements, and normally we try to obtain rights -of -way every 600 feet. Councilwoman Alger asked i f there is any documentation that advises that this is necessary,or any justification for requiring streets that way. Mr.Nakagawa replied that one justi- fication is traffic safety and circulation,i f roadways are limited to one-half mile to one -quarter mile intervals traffic begins to stack up,creating an unsafe condition. Councilwoman Alger asked i f there is the potential for making this street longer than between Idaho and Winchester. that potential. longer could i t go. Mr.Nakagawa replied that there is Councilwoman Alger asked how much Mr.Nakagawa replied that Weekes Wash might be a constraint,as well as homes that are developed. this. Councilwoman Alger asked how far i t Mayor Bluntschly answered that i t would be approximately one -quarter of a mile. Director of Public Works Rich Broman commented that from Idaho to Weekes Wash would be one-half mile. Mr.John Slentz,1632 N.Chestnut Circle,Mesa,stated that he was asked for a quit claim deed to the property with a conditional zoning stipulation which he objected to,however,he did not object to the right-of-way dedication with a permanent zoning change. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 16,1991 PAGE 10 Mr.Nakagawa explained that the Zoning Ordinance was amended with a zoning reversion provision,reflecting the practise of acquiring rights -of -way at the time of zoning approval rather than wait until the time of building permit issuance. City Attorney David Alexander agreed that this was discussed and decided. Mr.Slentz stated that there is case in the City of Scottsdale that says a City cannot take land without just com- pensation,and should the rezoning be denied after quit claiming land to the City,he would be losing land without just compensation. Mayor Bluntschly explained that there would be no dedication of right-of-way i f the zoning was denied,and that the zoning would be lost only i f the property owner did not follow through with development. Mr.Slentz reiterated that i f he cannot develop within two years,he will lose the rezoning. Mayor Bluntschly pointed that this is not necessarily true,the applicant may apply for a one-year extension,and asked what amount of time does the applicant foresee as necessary to develop the property. Mr.Slentz replied that they planned to be under development before now,but a commercial use cannot be put in until Idaho Road is developed. Mayor Bluntschly stated that Idaho Road development is scheduled for early 1992. Mr.Slentz pointed out that they are at the mercy of the State,and asked that they be able to make the permanent dedication at the time the plan would be approved. Councilwoman Alger asked i f since this commercial entity is contingent upon what the State does with Idaho Road, can the Council postpone this application. Mr.Alexander replied that the Council could postpone this rezoning for six months to a year,although i t has never been done,which would allow the applicant to know what he needs to be do without losing application fees. postponement be for a specific date. Mr.Nakagawa recommended that the Mr.Alexander agreed that it would have to be for a specific date,and explained this option to the applicant. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 16,1991 PAGE 11 Assistant City Manager George Hoffman asked i f this would have to be readvertised i f the rezoning is postponed to a certain time. Mr.Alexander replied that it would not have to be. Mr.Hoffman commented that the intent of advertising is to provide the public with notice,and placing a date for nine months from now would not meet the spirit of the law,and suggested that i t be readvertised and asked who would bear the cost -the City or the applicant. Mr.Slentz stated that a tenant would have to be secured for the property,and to postpone nine months would be inconvenient,and asked this not be postponed that long but possibly for June 18th. City Engineer Gordon Grandy asked if this could be a conditional zoning. Mr.Alexander replied that this was discussed by the Planning and Zoning Commission,and the result of Council discussion was that the process be:zone,dedication,and i f i t does not firm, the dedications are not returned -and it would be at the act of the applicant that the zoning wasn't firmed. Mayor Bluntschly stated that until June 18th,staff can sit down and iron out any differences with the applicant, although dedications and zoning reversions are not discretionary on the part of staff. Mr.Alexander agreed that they are not discretionary -until the Council changes it's mind. Councilman Eidson stated that the applicants position is understandable,to give away property for nothing. Mayor Bluntschly pointed out that if he does receive zoning,and doesn't develop the property,it would be the appli- cants omission that causes him to lose the zoning. Councilman Eidson stated that to deterr a large business from coming in because of some right-of-way requirement is not logical,and possibly something can be done to allow the business to come in. Mayor Bluntschly stated that this reminds him of all of the problems and expense to obtain rights -of -way on Broadway and other streets within the City,and these procedures were set up to avoid those types of circumstances. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 16,1991 PAGE 12 Councilman Eidson stated that we have been trying to encourage businesses to come to Apache Junction,so there should be something that can be done. Mayor Bluntschly commented that the ordinance would have to be changed. Councilwoman Alger asked i f the necessity of the right-of-way has been determined,and suggested that the Transportation Board decide whether or not we need this 1/2 mile of street. Mayor Bluntschly asked Mr.Slentz i f he would like to request a continuance until June 18th. Mr.Slentz replied that he would. Councilwoman Barker MOVED THAT ORDINANCE NO.780 BE POSTPONED UNTIL THE JUNE 18,1991 MEETING. Councilman Cox seconded the motion. VOTE:In Favor:Councilman Cox,Councilman Eidson,Councilwoman Barker, Councilwoman Alger,Mayor Bluntschly Abstained:Councilman Vehon The motion carried. Mayor Bluntschly recessed the meeting at 8:20 p.m. Mayor Bluntschly reconvened the meeting at 8:30 p.m. PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO.91-12,GPA-91W-01, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT )Mr.Nakagawa explained that this is a City -initiated amendment to the General Plan,realizing that Section D.1.6 requires that certain findings be made before amendments are adopted and in some cases findings are not applicable,so the Planning and Zoning Commission directed that this section be changed where findings are not applicable. Mayor Bluntschly opened the hearing to the public,and asked i f there was anyone who wished to speak in favor of or in opposition to the item.There being no one wishing to address the Council, Mayor Bluntschly closed the hearing to the public. Councilman Vehon MOVED THAT RESOLUTION NO.91-12,APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GPA-91W-01,A CITY -INITIATED PROPOSAL TO MODIFY THE REQUIREMENT IN GENERAL PLAN SECTION D.1.6 SO THAT FINDINGS OF FACT NEED NOT BE MADE IF THE FINDINGS WOULD BE INAPPLICABLE TO THE AMENDMENT UNDER CONSIDERATION,BE APPROVED AND ADOPTED. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 16,1991 PAGE 13 Councilwoman Barker seconded the motion. VOTE:Unanimous The motion carried. PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO.91-13,GPA-91W-02, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT )Mr.Nakagawa explained that this is a City -initiated amendment which proposes the redesignation of all or some of the area in Section 21 currently designated High Density to Medium Density Residential,and stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the amendment,except for that area west of Colt Road. Mr.Nakagawa stated that submitted are handouts from Ms Elva Davies and Mrs.Louise Hughes,both recommending that the Council adopt High Density between Colt Road and Winchester,and change those remaining areas east of Colt Road to Medium Density. Councilman Eidson asked i f the area residents have been provided with notice of this change. received notices. Mr.Nakagawa replied that they all Councilman Vehon stated that doing this there will be three or four parcels which are presently residential,out of compliance with the General Plan,and had envisioned a smaller area being changed. Councilman Vehon asked how staff feels about this - would they feel more comfortable allowing more high density in that area. Mr.Nakagawa replied that staff recommended an even smaller area than the Commission recommended,that more of the area should be medium density. Mr.Ivan MalDonado,1054 E. Roosevelt Street,Apache Junction,expressed interest that the area remain a medium density area. Ms Elva Davies,181 N.Winchester, Apache Junction,commented that i t is important to keep a buffer zone,and expressed concern with the traffic pattern at Winchester stating that i t should be opened north to State Route 88. Mayor Bluntschly asked Ms Davies if she is familiar with the construction plan for State Route 88. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 16,1991 PAGE 14 Ms Davies replied that she isn't. Mayor Bluntschly explained that the intersection Ms Davies is concerned with will be abated,and will be done as part of the Idaho Road construction. Ms Davies stated that her concern is than unnecessary,but would still like to see Winchester opened onto SR 88 because the importance of an alternate route to the post office and County Complex. Mr.Earl Snapp,6160 E.Roosevelt, Apache Junction,property owner of apartments on Cactus,stated that this will cost him a considerable amount of money i f the zoning is taken away allowing apartments. his property is already developed. Mayor Bluntschly asked Mr.Snapp i f Mr.Snapp replied that i t is. Mayor Bluntschly explained that the amendment will have no impact on the already developed apartment building. Mr.Snapp stated that he has more property to the west that he could build more apartments on,and at least would be a sale value. property is already zoned for apartments. Councilman Vehon asked i f the other Mr.Snapp replied that i t is. Councilman Vehon explained that this is a general plan amendment and will not change the zoning,and will only mean that no one else will be able to come in and rezone for apartments. Mr.Snapp stated that he had been told that he would be unable to get a permit to build another apartment building. Mayor Bluntschly stated that as far as the zoning,this is not true,however,there may be other requirements that would not allow this. included in this amendment then. Mr.Snapp asked why his property is Mayor Bluntschly explained that the general plan amendment is dealing with the area,and it would not allow any new REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 16,1991 PAGE 15 zonings of this type in that area,but pre-existing would have grandfathered rights. Mr.Snapp asked i f the man next to him would be allowed chickens and horses i f the density is lowered. Mayor Bluntschly commented that hor- ses are not allowed in this area either. Mr.Nakagawa stated that the Council always has the option to change the zoning on a property,and should a future Council wish to rezone in conformance with the General Plan,i t is within their ability to do so. Councilman Vehon commented that i t would have to go through the rezoning process. Mr.Jack Dupont,1909 E.Barry Lane, Phoenix,owner of property on the corner of Winchester and Scenic Drive, expressed concern that changing this to medium density would affect his ability to put in a "garden"type commercial use. Mr.Nakagawa explained that i f Mr.Dupont was considering a commercial zoning to a presently zoned GR property, this amendment will not help with that as the consideration is for high density residential development. Mr.Dupont stated that he did not want to see multiple dwelling or single family residences in this area. There being no one else wishing to address the Council,Mayor Bluntschly closed the hearing to the public. Councilwoman Alger MOVED THAT RESOLUTION NO.91-13,APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GPA-91W-02,A CITY -INITIATED PROPOSAL TO REDESIGNATE FROM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL THE AREA IN SECTION 21 CURRENTLY DESIGNATED HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL EAST OF COLT ROAD,BE APPROVED AND ADOPTED. The motion died due to lack of a second. Councilman Vehon again expressed concern with the existing CR-5 zoning and development in the area which may cause some problems in the future. Councilwoman Alger stated that one of the reasons this recommendation came about from the General Plan Review Committee was because of the inability for that property to be used for anything other than high density,i f the ability were there to remain at a high density REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 16,1991 PAGE 16 level but be used for medium density use,the recommendation would not have ocurred. Councilman Vehon MOVED THAT RESOLUTION NO.91-13,APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GPA-91W-02,A CITY -INITIATED PROPOSAL TO REDESIGNATE FROM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL THE AREA IN SECTION 21 CURRENTLY DESIGNATED HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL BE APPROVED WITH A CHANGE,THAT THE AREA TO BE CHANGED TO MEDIUM DENSITY ONLY INCLUDE THAT AREA NORTH OF SCENIC AND WEST OF CACTUS 660 FEET. The motion died due to lack of a second. Mayor Bluntschly suggested con- tinuing this item to allow for more research. Councilwoman Alger MOVED THAT RESOLUTION NO.91-13 BE POSTPONED UNTIL THE JUNE 4,1991,REGULAR MEETING. Councilwoman Alger withdrew the motion,and suggested denying the resolution and starting over with a different approach,possibly something that would allow the different densities to co -mingle. Mayor Bluntschly commented that this would not be a good solution. Councilwoman Barker pointed out that this would be allowing different densities to co -mingle throughout the City. Councilwoman Alger again MOVED THAT RESOLUTION NO.91-13 BE POSTPONED UNTIL THE JULY 2,1991,REGULAR MEETING. Councilman Vehon stated that post- poning is not going to assist with this decision,as the issues won't change only the faces,and suggested Councilwoman Alger restate her original motion. Councilwoman Barker observed that this appears to make an attempt to create a buffer zone,and how much further can the buffer go without making a mess out of the area. motion. Councilwoman Alger withdrew the Councilwoman Alger pointed out that there is this high density right in the middle of all these medium density designations,and there needs to be the ability to do something else with the property other than high density uses. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 16,1991 PAGE 17 Councilwoman Alger MOVED THAT RESOLUTION NO.91-13,APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GPA-91W-02,A CITY -INITIATED PROPOSAL TO REDESIGNATE FROM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL THE AREA IN SECTION 21 CURRENTLY DESIGNATED HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL EAST OF COLT ROAD,BE APPROVED AND ADOPTED. Councilwoman Barker seconded the motion. VOTE:Unanimous The motion carried. PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO.91-14,GPA-91W-03, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ) )Mayor Bluntschly stated that the applicant has requested that this item be postponed until the June 18,1991, regular meeting. Councilwoman Alger MOVED THAT RESOLUTION NO.91-14,BE POSTPONED UNTIL THE REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 18,1991. Councilman Cox seconded the motion. VOTE:Unanimous The motion carried. OLD BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO.91-15, SUPPORTING THE ARIZONA LIBRARY FRIENDS ORGANIZATION ) )Director of Library Pam Loui announced Pat Meyers,Vice President of the Friends of the Library of Apache Junction to address the Council. Ms Pat Meyers thanked the Council and Mayor on behalf of the Library for the Resolution recognizing the group and enhancement of Libraries throughout the State,and invited the Council to a meeting on Friday,April 18th to exchange ideas to further libraries. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 16,1991 PAGE 18 Mayor Bluntschly called on the City Clerk to read Resolution No.91-15. City Clerk Kathleen Connelly read as follows: Resolution No.91-15,A Resolution of the Mayor and City Council of the City of Apache Junction,Arizona,sup- porting and commending the Arizona Library Friends for their continuing efforts to better the libraries of Arizona,and acknowledging their regional meeting being held in our community on April 19,1991. Be i t resolved by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Apache Junction, Arizona as follows: Whereas,the Arizona Library Friends have shown their continued support of the Apache Junction Public Library by providing ongoing information and assistance to the Apache Junction Friends of the Library group. Whereas,the Arizona Library Friends have made a continued commitment to the support of public libraries by encouraging Arizona businesses to support all libraries and maintaining open communication with the legislature. Whereas,the Arizona Library Friends have shown their continued commitment to Apache Junction by providing materials and information to the Apache Junction Friends of the Library. Now,therefore,be i t resolved by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Apache Junction,Arizona,that the Arizona Library Friends organization is hereby commended for their continued and unwavering support of the causes of libraries for Arizona citizens and recognized for their role in bettering public libraries throughout the state. Mayor Bluntschly stated,on behalf of Vice Mayor Damiano,that Apache Junction has an excellent Library and staff, and without the Friends of the Library,our Library services wouldn't be there. Councilwoman Alger MOVED THAT RESOLUTION NO.91-15,SUPPORTING AND COMMENDING THE ARIZONA LIBRARY FRIENDS FOR THEIR CONTINUING EFFORTS TO BETTER THE LIBRARIES OF ARIZONA,AND ACKNOWLEDGING THEIR REGIONAL MEETING BEING HELD IN OUR COMMUNITY ON APRIL 19,1991,BE APPROVED AND ADOPTED. Councilwoman Barker seconded the motion. VOTE:Unanimous The motion carried. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 16,1991 PAGE 19 PROPOSED NEW LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE )City Manager Michael R.Lee explained that this Lease Agreement replaces the Agreement which expired two days ago after eight years,and some of the changes include the Chamber of Commerce paying for their own water and utilities,the City providing grounds maintenance and cleaning the building.Mr.Lee stated that the Chamber promotes the City and community,thereby increasing revenues and economic development. Mr.Lee added that this new agreement is for a ten year period,including a termination clause with a one year notice,and provides a savings of $750 over the current lease. Councilman Vehon requested that something be put in the agreement guaranteeing that the Chamber carry liability insurance for the property with the City as additional insured. Mr.Keith Hilgendorf stated that liability insurance is in place,but that the City would be named as additional insured. Councilman Vehon asked what the insurance coverage limit is. Mr.Hilgendorf replied that i t is $1,000,000. Councilman Vehon asked i f there is a reason for a ten year agreement versus a five year. Mr.Lee replied that there are no current plans to utilize the property for anything else,and i t provides some advantage to the Chamber to be able to plan into the future,and finally,the one year termination clause allows for other plans. Mayor Bluntschly stated that the partnership will be beneficial,but that he has concern with the cost of $400 per year for the use of the conference room with negotiable amounts for addi- tional use,that there should be an additional charge established or no fee at all,and that a time for the electric change -over to be specified. Mr.Hilgendorf stated that there was an attempt to approach a "win -win"situation,and that the possibility of going over 400 hours of usage on the part of the City would limit the usage of other organizations. this is for a ten year period of time. Mayor Bluntschly pointed out that Mr.Hilgendorf replied that a lease had to be in place to refinance the building,and originally a 30 year lease REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 16,1991 PAGE 20 was suggested,however,a ten year lease was acceptable to financial institutions. Mr.Lee asked how long it would take to get the Chamber building metered separately by Salt River Project. Mr.Hilgendorf replied that 30 days would be sufficient. Councilman Vehon asked if a ten year lease is required before the building can be refinanced. Mr.Hilgendorf replied that it would satisfy the requirement. Councilwoman Barker pointed out that the use of the conference room has increased every year,and wondered if 400 hours would be adequate within ten years,so the agreement needs to allow a change in that area. Mr.Hilgendorf explained that there was no charge for the use of the room with the current lease,and to pay for the use puts the City in the parameter of a justifiable use,but that a stipulation for that portion to be reviewed annually would be agreeable. Mr.Hoffman asked i f there isn't a standard governmental rate for the use of the room. Mr.Hilgendorf agreed. Mr.Hoffman asked i f it wouldn't be appropriate for the contract to read "$400 for 400 hours,and after that the standard governmental rate". Mr.Lee stated that Mr.Hilgendorf's concern is that at some point the City would be using the room 800 hours,which would definitely affect their revenue,however,i f i t is 450 hours it may not affect anything or cost extra so i t seemed appropriate to leave that open. Councilman Cox agreed that ten years is a long contract to saddle the next council with. Mayor Bluntschly stated that locking into such a long contract with numerous possible changes is too long. Councilwoman Alger pointed out that in light of the fact that the Chamber needs a ten year lease for refinancing,i t would be better to have an annual review for renegotiations,a future council would not be stuck with something they may not want. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 16,1991 PAGE 21 Councilman Cox asked what it would cost to terminate the contract. City Attorney David Alexander replied that the agreement does not call for any consideration at termination, although that is typical. Councilwoman Alger MOVED THAT THE LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION AND THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE FOR LAND USE BE APPROVED EFFECTIVE APRIL 16,1991,AND TO EXPIRE ON APRIL 16, 2001. Councilman Eidson seconded the motion. Councilman Vehon amended the motion BY INCLUDING IN PARAGRAPH 8(C)THIRTY DAYS FOR THE CHAMBER TO CHANGE OVER THE ELECTRIC;CHANGE PARAGRAPH 5 BY GIVING US THE ABILITY TO LOOK AT THE NUMBER OF HOURS WE ARE ALLOWED ON AN ANNUAL BASIS;INCLUDE A PARAGRAPH 18 WHICH WOULD SET FORTH THE CHAMBER CARRYING LIABILITY INSURANCE WITH THE CITY BEING AN ADDITIONAL INSURED,AS PART OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT. amendment. VOTE (On the amendment):Unanimous VOTE (On original motion):In Favor: Opposed: The motion carried as amended. PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO.91-19,NOTICE OF ELECTION FOR MAY 21,1991, GENERAL ELECTION Councilwoman Barker seconded the Councilwoman Barker,Councilwoman Alger, Councilman Vehon,Councilman Eidson, Mayor Bluntschly Councilman Cox ) )City Clerk Kathleen Connelly_ explained that this is the final action completing the process for the election; sets the date for the General Election;designates the purpose of the election, including the candidates and the ballot questions for the sewer issue;designa- tes election officials,establishing their rate of pay;location of the polling places and hours. City Attorney David Alexander stated that we can have language such as "for""against"rather than "yes"and "no"on the questions,but caution should be taken on how expansive that language is. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 16,1991 PAGE 22 Ms Connelly suggested replacing "yes"or "no"with "for the sewer utility",and "against the sewer utility". Councilman Vehon stated that i t should be kept simple such as "yes"and "no". Councilwoman Alger MOVED THAT RESOLUTION NO.91-19,PROVIDING NOTICE OF THE REGULAR GENERAL ELECTION; ESTABLISHING POLLING PLACES AND VOTING DISTRICTS AND THE TIMES THAT SUCH POLLS WILL BE OPEN;AND APPOINTING ELECTION OFFICIALS AND FIXING THEIR RATE OF COMPENSATION,BE APPROVED AND ADOPTED. Councilwoman Barker seconded the motion. VOTE:Unanimous The motion carried. COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF ON PROPOSED LEGISLATION OR ACTIONS. HIRING OF A FULL-TIME CITY ATTORNEY. Assistant City Manager George Hoffman stated that the Council desired addi- tional information on the hiring of a full-time City Attorney which has been provided,and briefly outlined the questions with recommendations on those questions. Councilman Vehon commented that staff has brought back very direct,easy to understand recommendations. Councilman Vehon MOVED THAT THE FOLLOWING POLICIES BE ADOPTED FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY'S POSITION: I .THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY SHALL REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL 2.THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY SHALL HAVE A CONTRACT 3.THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR,AND REVIEW THE WORK OF,THE CITY PROSECUTOR 4.THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY SHALL WORK EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE CITY. Councilwoman Alger seconded the motion. Councilman Vehon stated that he understands the point made by Mr.Hoffman on considering the outside employment question on a case -by -case basis,but the City is ready for a full-time committment. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 16,1991 PAGE 23 Mr.Lee asked about allowing a transition period for someone who is currently involved in a private practice. Council consensus was that this would be appropriate. VOTE:Unanimous The motion carried. SELECTION OF MEETING DATES,TIMES,LOCATIONS AND PURPOSES: EXECUTIVE SESSION,WORK SESSION, MAY 6,1991 EXECUTIVE SESSION,MAY 7,1991 ) )Mayor Bluntschly suggested holding the Executive Session at 5:30 p.m.,for purposes previously discussed. City Attorney David Alexander advised that some of that may be able to be discussed publicly,and should an Executive Session become necessary,that right has been reserved. Councilman Vehon MOVED THAT AN EXECUTIVE SESSION BE HELD AT 6:00 P.M.,AND A WORK SESSION AT 7:00 P.M.,ON MAY 6,1991,IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS; AND THAT AN EXECUTIVE SESSION BE HELD AT 6:00 P.M.,ON MAY 7,1991,IN THE CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM. Councilman Cox seconded the motion. VOTE:Unanimous The motion carried. INFORMATION AND REPORTS Mayor Bluntschly made Council aware of the celebration and dedication of four yellow and four red roses in remembrance of the troops,at Veterans Memorial Park on May 11th. ADJOURNMENT ) )There being no further business to discuss,Mayor Bluntschly adjourned the meeting at 9:53 p.m. Consent Agenda Items are as follows: REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 16,1991 PAGE 24 1.Acceptance of Agenda 2.Acceptance of Minutes of Regular Meeting of April 2,1991 3.Authorization to contract for financial services for audit purposes; authorization to notify Arizona Department of Revenue of contract for such services. 4.Proposed Resolution No.91-18,Request for Transportation Assistance Funds pursuant to Section 28-2602 Arizona Revised Statutes. 5.Re -approval of Pretreatment Agreement with the Cities of Mesa and Phoenix and the Subregional Operating Group outlining pretreatment requirements. ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED THIS 7TH DAY OF MAY ,1991,BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA. ,1991.SIGNED AND ATTESTED TO THIS 13TH DAY OF MAY KENN Mayor ATTEST: KATHLEEN CONNELLY a z 4 4 - City Clerk TH BLUNTSCHLY CITY COUNCIL MINUTES CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Apache Junction,Arizona,held on the 16th day of REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 16,1991 PAGE 25 April,1991.I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this OP day of 1 . 2 7 1991. KATHLEEN CONNELLY City Clerk REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 16,1991 PAGE 26